The UAE is already actively involved in the Security Container Initiative, a worldwide activity involving all the major players in shipping, port administration, and port security.

Hundreds of thousands of UAE-supervised containers pass through our ports every year already.

The UAE has consistently been a cooperative partner in the SCI, so not only have they been a part of the problem for longer than COL Gene has been aware of the problem, but they've also been a part of the solution that whole time as well.

UAE administration of these particular ports doesn't actually change the container security situation in any significant way.

(Especially on account of the UAE management company not actually being in charge of port security for these ports anyway.)

You are NUTS!

Does anyone remember the Trojan Horse? How about millions of UAE horses per year coming into America.

I think those speak for themselves.

What does Nostradamus tell us about the operator-sale-morphed-into-port-security issue, Gene?

It is time to insure the containers are safe BEFORE the containers arrive in our ports

Here's a silly question, Gene. How does having US interests operate US ports make this happen? Better question - How does having UAE interests operate these ports ensure that the containers AREN'T safe?

Last time I checked, the containers are loaded and sealed at the port of embarkation (ie, foreign soil). When they get to our ports, they're offloaded from the ship and the internal cargo broken down to smaller transhipments (if necessary). That's it. No loading involved.

The only loading involved at the ports where stuff would be going INTO the containers - is outbound cargo. You know, stuff leaving the country?

Col, did you rent the movie "The Sum Of All Fears" from netflix and have been watching it for weeks everyday? Just because you don't have to pay late fees doesn't mean you have to keep it for so long.

I won't call you stupid, because you have the right to be concerned over these kinds of things. But that doesn't mean that everyone else is stupid or ignorant simply because they don't agree with you. Cry and moan all you want, the deal will go thru all the same.

It amazes me how everyone here feels the need to have to explain themselves, with detail, over and over and over to Col knowing he will never listen. I include myself in that group BTW. I can barely get 10 or 15 people to reply on my articles yet he makes some of the highest scoring articles I have seen in here and barely one or 2 of them make sense.

"Britain has an active terror problem. ALL of the bombers in their recent attack were British residents."

There is a big difference between a few Muslim nutcases from northern England attacking UK transport and the government of the UAE actively supporting terrorism.

The answer to your question, which is a good question, of how does approving the UAE contract ensures the containers AREN’T safe... Since the company that has this contract both supervises the loading of the containers and prepares the documents that are to list the contents, a slip on that end would allow the potential for a nuclear weapon or some other WMD to be concealed in a container bound for our ports. We do not have the means to insure that every container and every document is truthful. Thus we are saying we are placing OUR TRUST in a company owned by an Islamic country with a checkered background to be responsible to insure NO CONTAINER has WMD inside and that ALL documents show what is in the containers. It is those documents that the Coast Guard uses to decide which of the containers they inspect.

Gene, that's all well and good. Sadly, THEY DO THIS ALREADY WHEN THE CONTAINERS ARE LOADED ON THEIR END!!!

The port operators DO NOT load up containers for shipping. Their concerns are making sure Container A gets on Ship B destined for Port C. For incoming cargo, they make sure that container D gets off of Ship E and gets on Truck F to go to Destination G.

They're the folks that employ the longshoreman that actually do the off-/on-loading of the ships. The actual (un)loading of the containerized cargo. The emptying of the cargo is done a) at another location by the folks that are the actual recipients of the cargo.

Where in this chain could

a nuclear weapon or some other WMD to be concealed in a container bound for our ports

These items would have to be loaded in ANOTHER FREAKIN' COUNTRY before they ever reached US ports. Unless, you're talking about the UAE loading nukes onto containers that are on US soil DESTINED FOR OTHER COUNTRIES. In which case, I'm ALMOST tempted to say "Screw 'em."

Next time, Gene, make sure you get a little bit clearer picture of what actually happens in an area before you start ranting. Or better yet, go visit the Port of Tampa Bay or Port of Miami for ideas of what happens in a port. See, I did that. Went with my son to look at the Port of Norfolk to see what was going on there and how things work. Have done the same in Seattle. I'm not exactly clueless of what happens in a port.

Gene, here's your golden opportunity. Form yourself a company and put in a bid for the P&O's US operations.

Or would you rather the Feds showed up at Proctor & Gamble and advised them they are now required to run the ports so they better get their shit together pronto?

What company would you nominate, Gene?

This whole circus has been idiotic and is getting more Alice-in-Wonderland every day.

Which is exactly the point, Gene - this has nothing to do with keeping WMD out of our ports, despite your feigned hysteria. And, as usual, of course, you ignore questions put to you.

Most Americans do NOT WANT this contract to be approved

I'd say most Americans do not UNDERSTAND the contract and some are now unwilling to learn because they believe what the media hyped in the beginning....that our "national security" is being sold out.

Daiwa, your story fails to inspire, because it involves Gene promoting a classic neoconservative position on DDT.

Please explain WHY the Coast Guard saw security problems with Dubai taking over the operation of these ports and WHY the 9/11 Commission had problems with UAE?

I do not have to make Bush look BAD. He does that EVERY DAY!

I do not have to make Bush look BAD.

BTW, no you don't have the ability to make the President look bad. Jon Stewart, CNN, New York Times... they can make the President look bad. You, my friend, are not a player.

However, you have the ability to make yourself look bad. That comes from posting away with your hat conveniently covering your eyes. You only peek out to see things you want to see. Your blithering drones about GWB are such a nuisance. You refuse to concede a point, no matter how grounded in reality it is, because it doesn't gibe with your own mindset. If you treat people in real life like you treat the people on JU, you would be a social pariah.

Kudos on typing in the dark. I have to look at my hands when I type.